Do climate sceptics and anti-nukes matter? or: How I learned to stop worrying and love energy economics

This is a Discussion Thread, because I really want your feedback. But first, some context.

By late 2008, I was pretty stressed about climate change. Working on the science of climate (and other anthropogenic) impacts on natural systems, as I do, I could foresee potentially insurmountable problems for biodiversity and human civilisation this century. A time of consequences. Things looked grim, unless there was a massive change in attitudes towards energy supply and resource sustainability. This was exemplified by my post on the Olduvai Theory and Paul Gilding’s short essay on “The Great Disruption”. I got really annoyed by ‘climate change sceptics’ because I felt they were undermining our collective will (and political capital) to take effective action, using mostly recycled, pseudo-scientific distractions.

Then, I started to study the energy problem in detail. It was a Damasceneconversion, as I came to realise, via the analysis of the real-world numbers rather than hype or spin: (a) the inadequacy of renewable energy as a complete (or even majority) solution to achieving low-carbon future (…and therefore avoiding the worst of climate change impacts), and (b) the comprehensive value of nuclear energy in solving the energy and climate challenges the world now faces, in the race to supplant our dependence on fossil fuels.

At this point, mid- to late-2009, I got really annoyed with anti-nuclear protesters, because I felt that, through their outdated ideology and inexcusable hypocrisy, they were undermining the collective will (and political capital) needed to pursue a future in sustainable atomic energy. What galled me the most about this was that I felt I was now fighting a war on two simultaneous anti-science fronts — against trenchant ‘fossil fuels forever’ interests (who ironically understood the need for energy security and technological prosperity) on one side, and hardline ‘nuclearphobles’ (who ironically understood the need for action to avoid serious climate change) on the other.

Now though, I’m much more relaxed about it all. In short, I’ve learned to stop worrying about ’sceptics’ and ‘antis’ and love energy economics (the real-world outcome, not the academic discipline!). Let me explain briefly, prior to further elaboration in the comments section.

Historical emissions of fossil fuels have come largely from the developed world (US/Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.). In the 21st century, the growth in emissions, and quite soon the total mass of emissions, will come from the developing world (China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.).

In the developed world, there is general recognition of the energy and climate problems, but little real political incentive to do anything meaningful about it (at least in the short term). There are, however, many minority (but influential) special-interest groups trying to block or stymie change. Now, environmental well-being is ultimately very important to these societies, as is steady economic growth and maintenance of high standards of living, but they also (think they) have the luxury of making choices that balance these priorities against more nebulous or philosophical concerns. This has, in turn, led to inaction, endless circular debates, media wars, unstrategic planning, and public policy that is guided by political points scoring and partisanship rather than rational analysis and long-term cost-benefit. In short, slow, suboptimal change.

In the developing world, there’s a race on. A race to higher standards of living and lots of energy, delivered as cheaply as possible. Environmental concerns have tended to take a back seat, although immediate, local problems, such as air and water pollution, are quickly rising to prominence. These nations represent an economic and demographic freight train, and nothing we ‘decide or advise’ in the developed world is going to slow it down. Anti-nuclear campaigners and climate change sceptics are both utterly irrelevant in these places. By the time the dust has settled, and these societies have the ‘luxury’ of paying any attention to special interest groups, it’ll already be game over — be it a ‘win’ or a ‘loss’.

Now, if the Chinas and Indias of this world do end up following a fossil-fuel-intensive pathway to development, we’re all stuffed — whether they manage to make it all the way up the development curve or fail in the attempt. It won’t matter at this point what gains the currently developed world might have managed to achieve. If, alternatively, these rapidly growing economies are able to develop and deploy non-fossil energy sources cheaply and on a massive scale, we all win. Whether the technology ends up being ‘proven up’ in China, the US, or wherever, the very fact that it will have proven cost-competitive with coal will mean that everyone has won. I return to my favourite quote from Steve Kirsch:

Pouring money into token mitigation strategies is a non-sustainable way to deal with climate change. That number will keep rising and rising every year without bound. The most effective way to deal with climate change is to seriously reduce our carbon emissions. We’ll never get the enormous emission reductions we need by treaty. Been there, done that. It’s not going to happen. If you want to get emissions reductions, you must make the alternatives for electric power generation cheaper than coal. It’s that simple. If you don’t do that, you lose.

Take a nation like Australia. It has very high per-capita carbon emissions. It currently has an anti-nuclear government. It has many noisy, influential climate change sceptics, including leading politicians. It makes token gestures towards subsidising renewable energy, but won’t commit to it seriously (for good reason, in my opinion). The upshot is that we’ll vacillate, debate and tinker with toy solutions for years. Then, when it makes economic sense to do so — when those places with the incentive to make things happen have done so and the cheaper-than-coal alternative energy is available — we’ll follow like sheep as the viable-clean-energy bell calls us home. As such, I see my role as a messenger, a public educator, a futurist, a facilitator (e.g. via SCGI). I won’t change what’s coming, but I might influence the timetable of events!

So, the debating point I open to BNC readers is this. Do climate sceptics and anti-nukes matter? My evolved position is that they don’t — at least not in any way that is meaningful — but I’m happy to debate it below. The floor is open…

(Acknowledgements to Dr Strangelove for the title of this thread. Also, regarding the topic of weapons proliferation and used nuclear fuel, I highly recommend the following essay that has just been posted on DepletedCranium, “Why You Can’t Build a Bomb From Spent Fuel“. It’s the best layman’s summary of the issue I’ve yet seen, bar none, with lots of useful diagrams too. Do yourself a favour and go read it.).

@Stephen Gloor:
"Climate change deniers go against the vast body of research that exists. There is no comparable body of research that concludes that nuclear is the way to go therefore renewable advocates are NOT comparable to climate change deniers..."

Yes. There is. EIA.gov, for a start. Basic understanding about the workings of a nuclear reactor for a second.

Fission produces about 1 MW-y of energy per kilo of fission. LWRs only achieve 1% burnup, so that's more like 1 MW-y / 100kg, but if you reprocess the remaining 99% (we're not allowed to in the US), you can get the same 1 MW-y / kg, eventually - without new mining or storage of long-lived waste.

There is no practical form of energy that gets that kind of density. None. Fusion* may, in the future, when we can finally consistently solve the world's smallest mini-golf game, but it doesn't now.

"...I bitterly resent being put in the same category"

That's a damned shame. Some self-education would solve that for you, though.

* Fusion advocates annoy me. You're only getting like 4-5 times the energy output per input mass of fission, but they're all like "It's so much more powerful!". The leap in energy density from anything else to fission is on the order of 500,000:1. 4:1 is not so damned impressive, especially considering we can advance fission now - and are, for all intents and purposes, not.

Stephen, no, the short-term gap cannot conceivably be closed. The path to zero emissions by 2050 -- or whatever level we can achieve -- will almost certainly be a result of an exponential replacement of fossil fuels, not a linear one. The linear partitioning was for illustrative purposes only, to underscore the size of the challenge.

"In July 2009, the State Council was reported to be considering raising
the 2020 target to 86 GWe installed and 18 GWe under construction."

So in China where NIMBYs disappear, and there is not the same regulation and control that you say hampers the development of nuclear in the USA they plan to have 86GWe installed by 2020 which is 86/(10*365) = 23MWe per day. This is 23/680MWe which is around 3% of the rate that you require for TCASE3.

Assuming that China is about the easiest place to build nuclear in the world as they are cashed up and have no environmental movement or free press if they can only get possibly get to 3% of the rate that you calculate we need then how are reactors in the free world expected to get built at the rate you calculate? Would we have to make NIMBYS disappear or shut down our environmental movements?

How do you propose to close this gap? Do you think really that it is possible?

Stephen, Gen III+ nuclear power is not 'imaginary' by any definition, and this is what we should be building in great number over the next two decades as Gen IV (IFR, LFTR are brought to full commercialisation and industries-of-scale).

Nathan Wilson - "Stephen, your suggestion #2 (that we should delay discussing clean
energy sources until we have fully included energy efficiency,
conservation, and changes to society) is completely irrational."

So it is more rational to continue on business as usual with a strategy that has lead us into this complete mess we find ourselves in??? Also who said anything about delaying? Energy conservation and efficiency is the cheapest, fastest and easiest of all the clean energy options that are on the table at the moment. The only problem is that 20% of the world's population that use 80% of the energy may not like them as much as the other options including nuclear.

And no society change does not belong in another forum. Our society the way it is now exists only because of cheap fossil fuels. It is quite possible that nothing, neither nuclear or renewables, can replace these fast enough to do any good. Leaving us with societal change as either an option to persue voluntarily or the default involuntary option if all other avenues fail and society crashes around us. Don't get me wrong I am not a doomer predicting the end of civilisation however there is the non-zero probablility that this might happen.

Leaving EE&C out of the equation is completely foolish and is one of my major objections to the "supply will save us" approach of most nuclear power advocates. Both nuclear and renewables really need savage cuts in energy use to make them work on a time scale that will prevent climate change. It is simply another facet of the depth of your denial that you can think that it is possible to roll out enough nuclear power plants to cope with BAU growth and the replacement of all carbon intensive power sources.

Even with savage cuts and a renewable solution that can be rolled out starting today, not in 10 or 20 years when all your imaginary technology is ready, it is touch and go whether this will be enough to avoid dangerous climate change.

Stephen, your suggestion #2 (that we should delay discussing clean energy sources until we have fully included energy efficiency, conservation, and changes to society) is completely irrational.

We know that the least-cost method of building a clean energy supply is to do it gradually, by deploying clean generation for all demand growth and to replace retiring assets. This is not optimal for a rapid transition. Delaying the start of the transistion will delay the end-point even further.

We clearly must attack all fronts simultaneously. And probably your suggestion to change society belongs on another discussion forum.

However they all fail to address the core tenets of my posts which are:

1. I find the odious comparison of renewable energy advocates with climate change deniers to be insulting and demeaning. If your arguments for nuclear power are so weak that you have to resort to this sort of thing then it only reflects on you and strengthens my argument that you have joined Fonzie and jumped the shark.

2. That you completely fail to recognise that we need to include energy efficiency and conservation and changes to our society to even have any chance of reducing climate change well before we consider what may be the correct energy source for the future.

If you would care to answer these questions away from the BNC nuclear echo chamber then that would be good.

Stephen, anti-nuclear renewable advocate most are obstructing climate change mitigation and doing so in a far more dangerous way than climate change deniers are. There is a rapidly growing body of research literature that contradicts the claims that renewable supporters make about the carbon mitigation potential of renewable energy.
When renewable critics point to holes in arguments in support of renewables, to inadequate data, or to data which contradicts the case which anti-nuclear advocates are making, the renewable advocates simply ignore the problem, and simply go on to another argument.
Anti-nuclear ideologues base their case on several untrue arguments. They argue that nuclear power is unsafe, despite ample empirical evidence that nuclear power has a superior safety record, and is safer than both fossil fuels and wind. Anti-nuclear ideologues argue that nuclear power is dangerous because of the problem of nuclear waste. Yet despite ample evidence that any number of several competing nuclear waste solutions would work, anti-nuclear ideologues continue to oppose any nuclear waste solution. Anti-nuclear ideologues argue that nuclear power is dangerous because of nuclear proliferation. This argument rests on two mistakes. The first is that the possession of civilian power reactors in itself leads to weapons programs. An analysis will of the routes taken by states that currently possess nuclear weapons, demonstrate that most developed their nuclear weapons program before rather than the developed civilian reactor programs. Furthermore, the notion that reactor grade plutonium is weaponizable is contradicted by nuclear weapons experts, and physicists who have worked with nuclear arms control negotiations. No nation has ever developed, and successfully tested a reactor grade plutonium nuclear weapon, despite having abundant raw material to do so.
Finally, anti-nuclear ideologues argue that nuclear power is too expensive. Yet when the true capital costs of electricity from renewables, that is the cost of the subsidies, and the costs that gets paid by rate payers, the cost of renewables is always higher. Thus none of the anti-nuclear arguments withstands critical evaluation, and people who are interested effective AGW mitigation, such as environmental activist Stewart Brand, should be willing to acknowledge the weakness of the anti-nuclear case. You are not willing to do that.
Stephen, John D Morgan,has pointed out the contradictions in your claims, that renewable energy can both serve as base load power, and that it will teach us to get by on a low energy lifestyle. Steven, isn't that what AGW skeptics do, maintain contradictory positions, even after the contradictions are pointed out.?
You argue "“Nuclear is the answer” is a very short sighted opinion when the problem is much bigger than where our energy supply should come from." This is what logicians call a straw many argument. You simply, without the slightest evidence, make a blanket attribution of a bogus idea to the people you disagree with, and then say, "you see there, you are wrong."
You argue, "Your simplistic notion that all we have to do is roll out nuclear and all will be well is not becoming for a person of your education and experience." This putdown is totally unjustified because you have not established that anyone holds the simplistic notion you attribute to them.
You argue, "I would have expected a far more sophisticated world view than this from you and indeed that is how you started when I first started to read this blog. " Since you have failed to make a case that Barry Brook takes any of the is unsophisticated ideas you attribute to him, this is simply another gratuitous put down.
You state, "Your myopia on nuclear is chasing away real debate and BNC is now nothing more than a nuclear echo chamber." Echo chamber? Please! Don't you see that there are at the moment 167 comments on in response to Barry's post? Don't you see that comments are written from a variety of positions, and there is spirited disagreement between commenters? Don't you see that among the pro-nuclear commenters on this blog there are significant areas of disagreement? Stephen, who is being myopic here?
You maintain, "Only when we realise that our society is the problem and we need drastic change so that we can be truly sustainable for the future will the problem of climate change be addressed." You have not established what you think the problem is. I will presume that you are a neo-Malthusian, that is a person who doubts that the earth lacks the carrying capacity for its present and future human population. In fact, I have detected some sympathy for that position in Barry's writings, and if so it would be one of the areas that Barry and I disagree on.
In addition to attributing to Barry a position that he might well disagree with, you add a seeming non-sequitor. Even if the claims you are attempting to make are true, how does your no-nuks approach follow. You have laid not groundwork, and have not presented to well thought out argument to which this would be a valid conclusion.
Finally, you srgue, "That answer may turn out to be nuclear or at least GenIV however you are not asking the right questions nor are you fostering a free and open debate that may get near the correct questions. Indeed there are many people that question the notion that any society that needs exponential growth can EVER be sustainable and we are just pissing in the wind. They may turn out to be the most correct of all of us."
Stephen what are "the right questions," and why do you think that they are? Again you attribute to Barry and others a view, which they might disagree with if given a chance, and if they agree with it, might add significant qualifications. In short you are creating another straw man argument. No one her has argued for exponential growth, and economic growth, need not consume more and more materials. There is, as Richard Feynman pointed out plenty of room for growth by miniaturization, there is plenty of room at the bottom. Economic growth can come by doing more and more by less and less. Secondly, there has not been a realistic assessment of world material resources, and thus there is no grounds for claims that economic growth, at least the sort of growth I suggest is unsustainable. We know that some material resources exist in a sustainable supply. Among the sustainable resources are uranium and thorium, which exist in sufficient abundance that they will outlast and human demands, given that solar evolution will one day maker the earth uninhabitable. Should solutions to our energy problems wait for a world resource assessment? I don't think so. We have the material resources to solve the energy problem for as long as we choose to, so why not use them.
Stephen the argument here is that nuclear critics resemble AGW skeptics. One of the ways they do so, I would maintain is by use of irrational arguments. I have pointed to numerous flaws in your arguments, flaws which I also find in arguments presented by AGW skeptics. Thus in that regard, I would maintain that yes, your argument style and its flaws does have a lot in common with AGW skeptics.

Thanks for the comments Marc and Peter, you make good points. Of course, if the cheaper-than-coal works out for renewable technologies too, then more's the better.

There are various response to Stephen Gloor's comments, and a raft of other observations, over on BraveNewClimate.com (running at 160 comments and climbing). I tend to respond to comments over there on my blog, rather than here on EC, as I'd go mad trying to following multiple threads. But I'm happy for EC to mirror these posts and expose non-BNC readers to my thinking.

It is completely ridiculous to compare climate change deniers with anti nuclear people…Climate change deniers cherry-pick and/or ignore this evidence to arrive at their world view.

It seems quite a valid comparison to me."

Which is exactly what you do to arrive at your world view of nuclear power. Simply linking to a list of things that seem valid to you however have absolutely no basis in truth and/or are not supported by peer reviewed research simply reinforces MY point.

Climate change deniers go against the vast body of research that exists. There is no comparable body of research that concludes that nuclear is the way to go therefore renewable advocates are NOT comparable to climate change deniers and I bitterly resent being put in the same category. It is a measure of how far off the rails that you and this blog have gone that this sort of fallacious comparison is acceptable.

This is not a return to this blog so you can rest assured that I will be not debating any of the points raised.

However climate change deniers DO matter as they delay action on climate change as they are extremely effective in what they do and they do have an effect.

Renewable advocates on the other hand perhaps do not matter other than trying to influence what they believe to be the best form of future energy. What influence they have is debatable when the real money is being wasted on Clean Coal.

"Nuclear is the answer" is a very short sighted opinion when the problem is much bigger than where our energy supply should come from. Your simplistic notion that all we have to do is roll out nuclear and all will be well is not becoming for a person of your education and experience. I would have expected a far more sophisticated world view than this from you and indeed that is how you started when I first started to read this blog. Your myopia on nuclear is chasing away real debate and BNC is now nothing more than a nuclear echo chamber.

Only when we realise that our society is the problem and we need drastic change so that we can be truly sustainable for the future will the problem of climate change be addressed. Only then can we begin to consider what is the best energy source. That answer may turn out to be nuclear or at least GenIV however you are not asking the right questions nor are you fostering a free and open debate that may get near the correct questions. Indeed there are many people that question the notion that any society that needs exponential growth can EVER be sustainable and we are just pissing in the wind. They may turn out to be the most correct of all of us.

Articles such as this only reinforce my view that rather than a
“Damascne Conversion” Barry has actually “jumped the shark”.

It is completely ridiculous to compare climate change deniers with
anti nuclear people.

There exists a vast body of peer reviewed research, that Barry has
contributed to, proving global warming is a real phenomenon and will
cause some degree of climate change in the future. What that climate
change will be is harder to determine as the climate is very complex and
we do not have a complete understanding however most of the current
models are far more optimistic than reality as the climate is changing
faster than most people predicted. Climate change deniers cherry-pick
and/or ignore this evidence to arrive at their world view. Additionally
the vast majority of scientists agree that AGW is happening and will
cause climate change.

There is no doubt that we will need to reduce carbon emissions in the
future to avoid dangerous degrees of climate change however there
exists no body of peer reviewed work that proves one way or another what
the best method of achieving that low carbon future is. Therefore
Barry’s conversion is only his opinion and his opinion carries no more
weight than the hundreds of scientists such as Mills, Diesendorf and
Jacobson that have done peer reviewed work on the future of energy and
concluded that renewables can in fact contribute a majority of future
energy needs.

Therefore to compare climate change deniers who deny the body of
evidence for climate change and renewable advocates that have a degree
of science on their side is a fallacy of the highest order and is
unworthy of a person so well educated as Barry. Barry’s current
obsession with nuclear power is not supported by peer reviewed science
and it involves just as many outlandish assumptions and/or stretching of
technology than any of the claims of renewable advocates such as
myself. There are very real concerns about proliferation and storage of
nuclear waste that are ignored by nuclear advocates to arrive at the
conclusion that nuclear is the energy source of choice for a low carbon
world.

I am the first to admit that renewables do have a long way to go
before they will be supplying anything more than a token amount of the
worlds energy. However renewables have one overwhelming advantage over
other energy sources and that is by their nature foster a lower energy
use philosophy that is sadly lacking with most nuclear advocates. The
very core idea of nuclear power seems to be to continue the high energy
use society pretty much the same as it is now whereas most if not all
renewable advocates acknowledge the truth that our present society is
unsustainable no matter how much energy we throw at it. Nuclear power
with all its problems without drastic steps to reduce society’s
consumption of energy will be at best a band-aid on a wound that really
requires surgery.

Renewables, the philosophy of lower energy consumption and the
universal and scalable nature of renewables that are able to be deployed
to a village in Africa as well as Sydney means that in my opinion
offers more than nuclear power. If we truly want to transition to a low
carbon society and avoid dangerous climate change we need to do more
than change our energy source.

Big question Barry. Your piece implies that the developed world is paralysed by its internal conflicts of interest, and will not voluntarily act to reduce its own resource consumption (and hence standard of living). Initiative for crashing or saving our industrial society is thus passed to China, India, etc. Are you feeling dispirited by the irrational tendency in the blogosphere and recent perverse decisions by governments around the world?

We need to think of how a sustainable pattern of energy use could come about. Also, who will develop next-generation nuclear and why? Imagining that China and India will do it in the short term is fanciful. They are geared solely towards the quickest growth, which means cheapest energy, which currently means coal, gas and to a lesser extent oil. They may develop a mass market for some wind and solar, but it's hard to see them prioritising a speculative and very high technology option like nuclear.

Further, it's hard to see coal ever being more expensive than nuclear, unless carbon emissions are somehow priced at a realistic level. This looks most unlikely to happen by treaty, and I can't think how else it will come about. Once coal is sufficiently depleted to be expensive in its own right, the energy costs to establish a new nuclear capability will be prohibitively high.

So, I think that climate 'sceptics' and anti-nukes do matter, at least where they penetrate to the levels where decisions are made. We need governments to make far-sighted decisions to price carbon emissions and invest in nuclear power engineering. Nuclear has a long lead time with respect to human lifetimes, as does climate change. Both require foresight, planning and commitment. Governments are the only bodies who have the resources and position to do that.

With next-generation nuclear (of various types) there is a prospect of a relatively high energy future, where industrial society could potentially continue for some relatively long time and provide relatively high standards of living. Without next-gen nuclear, it's doubtful whether industrial civilisation can continue due to population overshoot, and therefore it will collapse to a level which requires much less energy to produce food and goods, probably on a much more local basis. Renewables should not be dismissed because they cannot be scaled to provide all of the base-load power for us to squander at today's rates, but it looks improbable that they will be able to prevent the convulsions of decline as we slide down the fossil energy slope.

I'll bet that most governments contain individuals who know these things, but not a sufficient number to turn a minority opinion into a majority opinion. Here climate and nuclear differ.

Countering the nonsense of climate sceptics is easy, because they are essentially a PR campaign with no underlying substance. I doubt whether even the US government is deluded enough to dismiss climate science. Despite the inevitability that sceptic PR will be exposed as insidious nonsense, it's important that governments are encouraged to actively promote policy on what they know privately is right. Essentially, to radically promote efficiency in energy and material use, price CO2 emissions and stimulate renewables.

Anti-nukes should be easier targets, because their arguments can be refuted by science less open to populist misinterpretation than climate. Problem is, governments are not yet ready to admit that nuclear solutions are going to be necessary. They need to be lobbied strongly and through the most effective channels. The blogosphere is not one of those, IMO. Perhaps a book like David MacKay's on renewables (www.withouthotair.com), with an easily understood fact and number based approach, would be one way?

Climate skeptics do matter, unfortunately. They are one reason why the U.S. has yet to put a price on carbon. This may never happen--my best guess is that it won't--but it ought to happen and the continuing attacks on the IPCC, Al Gore, climate science in general are undermining support for a well-designed program to capture the full cost of burning fossil fuels. It's become all but impossible for Republicans in the U.S. to support a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (Lindsey Graham is the courageous exception to the rule) because the party is home to so many climate skeptics and their media allies.

Anti-nuke advocates matter, too, because politics matters and they have a voice.

Having the said, I really like your argument that the fate of the human species will likely be decided by China and India. (Neither climate skeptics nor anti-nuke activists matter in China. I don't know about India.) And I agree wholeheartedly with the quote from Steve Kirsch. In the end, this battle is all about finding a low-carbon source of electricity that is cheaper than coal. Which is why coal with CCS (by definition, more expensive than coal) is less likely than nuclear power to be that source of electricity. Call be naive but I also continue to hope--pray?--for a technology breakthrough that would make solar or geothermal power cheaper than coal.

Therefore to compare climate change deniers who deny the body of
evidence for climate change and renewable advocates that have a degree
of science on their side is a fallacy of the highest order and is
unworthy of a person so well educated as Barry. Barry’s current
obsession with nuclear power is not supported by peer reviewed science
and it involves just as many outlandish assumptions and/or stretching
of technology than any of the claims of renewable advocates such as
myself. There are very real concerns about proliferation and storage of
nuclear waste that are ignored by nuclear advocates to arrive at the
conclusion that nuclear is the energy source of choice for a low carbon
world.

A guest says:

Climate sceptics matter because they are the BS meter for sloppy science, political catastrophism, and confusion between coincidence and causation.

Anti-nukes matter because they will delay the implementation and increase the cost of the BACT for base load generation in a low/no carbon future.

Economics matter as long as markets are permitted to remain functional. However, governments are likely to "tilt" the playing field and then rely on markets to rationalize the tilted playing field to the extent possible. Carbon taxes are one approach to tilting the playing field. Caps are another. RPSs are yet another. CAFE standards are a fourth.

"In the developed world, there is general recognition of the energy and climate problems, but little real political incentive to do anything meaningful about it (at least in the short term). There are, however, many minority (but influential) special-interest groups trying to block or stymie change. Now, environmental well-being is ultimately very important to these societies, as is steady economic growth and maintenance of high standards of living, but they also (think they) have the luxury of making choices that balance these priorities against more nebulous or philosophical concerns."

I should stop coming to this website since this kind of nonsense gets my blood boiling, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. The kind of people who cannot stand to get out of bed in the morning unless they believe that business as usual economic growth will continue for the rest of their lives are not amenable to rational arguments. I will vent my spleen one last time and then leave you people in peace to discuss methods for extending the bridge further over an endless abyss.

Before going further let me make it clear that I am not opposed to nuclear energy, and I agree that most renewable energy enthusiasts grossly underestimate the cost associated with intermittency. Whatever other club you wish to beat me with do not use the club of anti-nuclear bigotry.

There is no physical need for continued steady economic growth in the OECD nations, though, of course, there is a socio-political need because of the structural nature of private finance capitalism. If resource depletion starts to constrain economic production, then continued high demand on energy and other resources by the highly developed nations will put strong pressure on China, India, and other developing nations to use the cheapest, dirtiest means to catch up to us. Only if and when the short terms costs of nuclear are equal to or better than coal will coal be entirely displaced within the context of an economic system where short term composite economic growth is the primary measure of economic 'health'.

If peak oil is near (My belief is that the probability is high that it is already here.) then we are faced with a serious economic problem than cannot easily be solved by a push for more nuclear energy. Almost as soon the electric grid came into being electric motors started displacing heat engines in stationary settings. But after the better part of a century of grid delivered electricity the same displacement has not taken place in transportation because of the technical difficulties involved. My reading of the current effort to electrify transportation is that it is not even remotely close to being economically competitive with fossil fuel powered transportation. I think that if the global economic recovery gathers real strength oil prices will head into the stratosphere again. Unfortunately the easiest way to try to ease the short term pain of oil depletion is to find substitutes which mesh easily with the current infrastructure: i.e. Biofuels, tar sands, coal to liquids, all of which are ecologically unsound. Again our continued "need" for steady economic growth is driving the use of these destructive energy sources.

We do not need steady economic growth. We need to create an economic infrastructure which will maintain human welfare in the long term. Manufacturing more plasma screen televisions and electric sports cars is contributing nothing to the creation of such an infrastructure, and, in fact, is wasting resources that could be used for this end.

Have you ever heard of peak phosphorus? Modern agriculture is heavily dependent on mined rock phosphates which are finite in supply. Scientific American published an article about this issue a few month's ago. In spite of the fact that Scientific American has largely become a bastion of idiotic "what me worry" techno-optimism they actually sounded reasonably worried about this problem. The reason for their worry is that nutrient recycling is a pretty basic physical process, and it is not easy to imagine some unspecified high tech solution which is going to become cheap just when we need it. What if nutrient recycling requires more labor intensive agriculture? What if nutrient recycling requires a major redistribution of the human population in order to make returning human wastes to the soil more economical? Waiting until the market sends us a signal that we have a problem with phosphorus supply is insanity, and yet it is not on the economic agenda because it has nothing to do with keeping the financial system and the stock market 'healthy' over the next few years.

Our economic efforts need to be directed to some other goal than selling each other more stuff this year than we sold last year, but the social intelligence which would allow such a redirection of our efforts seems to be absolutely non-existent.